Harstad probably I'd say but try

Alright over the next couple of days then

that was so funny

Yop have read it but it was about the big six CEOs going to the meet the Archbishop of Canterbury and it mentioned that there was a possibility they will be told that where they are going to they won't need that much heat

That he is interested in being a party at the lawsuit, the problem we have is he wants to win and didn't agree at least until recently and that I am aware of with our views. Of course we wish the lawsuit to be successful but not at the expense of the understanding of the Small Nations Rights and struggle for basic rights whether Native Nations or National Minorities making the FCNM and ECRML the top priorities of the agenda given the urgency for these Nations or Minorities economies, the need to be able to act for themselves and in their best interests what of course the central state doesn't do and will not do.

I know not the first time he said that before

no I haven't, did u get it from them?

Yop the idea is to leave them with only one option which is to throw dirt but we have to be sure we have run down the entire spectrum of legitimate objections and consequences, be ready to explain what why and how with the right thought through arguments.

Nothing decided yet as still shewing how to deal with the expected opponents inevitable despicable arguments and the more is done now will be saving a lot of energy when they start to fire back

>>For how much?

Later tomorrow

Do u get me? The institutions can't be unsettled under the simple fact they were misguided in not dealing soon enough with a matter when obviously they didn't stand by the rules upholding their mission.

The idea behind it is u can still ask institutions to be rigorous with themselves, trial them when necessary and have failed while upholding their role if the plaintiffs apply to themselves and their action the principles that should have guided the institutions in the matters that are concerned. Not just it should considerably help the understanding of the case in which we are involved but it should help offset a wide range of objections to the lawsuit misportrayed you can expect as a challenge to the institutions themselves.

I don't know.... but for sure the overall balance needs the citizenry to act responsibly meaning the institutions don't hold by themselves long term.

m almost done you

It was generally speaking I meant that it looks difficult to say that legislate from the bench is wrong doing when the citizenry allows itself to turn the Courtrooms into political meetings attempting to get from the bench what the consensus has delayed, refused most of the time failed to reach within the legislature.

Had a glitch on thursday night... What r u guys doing?

Well yes that's among the motives keep passions at bay.

U tell me tomorrow then but I think I made up my mind.

I got it, as far as I know u share the view that legislate from the bench creates more problems that it solves any and when I saw the "unintended" thing make a come back, typically, the debate will turn the Court room  into a political meeting, that's wrong and counter productive. The separation of powers aren't just to be pretty, it is, should be the reminder that ultimately everyone's behaviour counts in the pursue of their own ends.
The legislator guiltiness search among the unintended consequences will inevitably lead to political arguments over the nature of secrecy laws and their use, a debate that has nothing to do in a Court room.
A failure to act from the legislator over a lasting unattended consequence of a legislation whose result is to alter definitively the due course of justice should can easily find its way in Court with a non political debate over and only over was it technically and constitutionally possible to write a piece of legislation to end the private interests sheltering by the state secrecy laws aimed and only aimed at protecting the state national security in due time to avoid the private interests wrongdoing to definitely escape the course of justice.

There was something else that crossed my mind

That's one u could have done... Just kidding

no kidding there are no incentives, why should there be any given u r only doing what u should do which is get involved in matters directly impacting the economy u live in....

well I don't know yet but I feel comfortable with it, among the consequences of the secrecy laws private interests were sheltered, whether or not the private interests involved have played a role and lobbied the legislation or the documents classification is irrelevant, altering the course of justice. A legislator intervention was needed to end what obviously was not and could not be among the legislation goals before this unattended consequence of the secrecy laws lead to permanently barred any lawsuits against the private interests involved. The legislator failing to act in a timely manner to allow the due course of justice to take place, whether or not any lawsuits be successful or not is irrelevant and don't need to be discussed at this stage, has engaged the State's responsibility.
Look right now at this minute I can run with that but have it chewed overnight and we'll see tomorrow how it tastes.
WTO - set a deadline, do my share over the next couple of days

That's why I don't be drawn in there... it is a mistake. We just don't know and we won't know, was it unintended, was there any hidden intent in it....? This is speculation, it will allow all kind of adventure and crazy stuff and a welcome distraction.... What counts is what cannot be questioned and that is, is there an unattended consequence regardless of whatever were the goals hidden or not of the secrecy laws? Answer YES, there is. Are among the legislator duties to remedy any unattended consequence of a legislation? YES Has the legislator failed to act? YES.
We should stick to that.

What's the level of intent of an unintended consequence?

Told u I don't be drawn in that debate and I think it is a mistake if it was what u guys had in mind.... It is second guessing of the legislator and speculation it will end up dead on arrival...

What is it that makes u think that.... If I write unattended it isn't unintended... u pain !

I just can't believe it... The drafts are out now for more than 48 hours I haven't read anything from any of u two but u had time to change my stuff....

With which section I end up with? We'll keep talking decide with what we r comfortable running with and turn to the lawyer with everyone's ok

I agree but still, so far the Court may not have paid a lot of attention to that but I believe it will for the foreseeable future, every breach of the understanding of the Rule of Law fairness is a breach of power. I never said that the legal techniques should be written under the understanding of the Rule of Law Fairness, what I wanted to emphasize on was that the breach in the understanding of the Rule of Law Fairness is more than a lack of understanding of the legal implications and techniques. It goes deeper it questions further than education, to neglect it undermines considerably more than just a Court order or the Court itself. That said, u can't either allow one's view of Fairness to write the Law or guide its understanding while a decision can explore and answer how is questioned the Rule of Law Fairness under these circumstances. Think that's what I meant...

well, the entire system relies on the common trust we share in the rule of law fairness. That's the heart of it so every time that fairness can be questioned it needs to be addressed....

Don't know for sure will have to wait for the law firm answers but what I have tried to do is look further the legal issue and unintended consequences of adopted legislations can't be counted for... it is a common place, it goes with legislate. Now when u fail to act on unintended consequences, can the state get away with it, that's what u r dealing with.

Not that I know - Ur week in Strasburg liked it?

How we do the splite then

ok

This is an extract of President Alvezedo final address "With these measures on trade facilitation, agriculture and development, we have achieved something very significant. People all around the world will benefit from the package you have delivered here today: the businesses community; the unemployed and the underemployed; the poor; those who rely on food security schemes; developing country farmers; developing country cotton growers; and the least-developed economies as a whole. But beyond that: we have reinforced our ability to support growth and development; we have strengthened this organization; and we have bolstered the cause of multilateralism itself."
But to be absolutely honest I m not done with all the documents and it would be good if we could share the task, let me know who has got time (documents are here) I don't see how the worse off ot the middle class in developped economies will benefit from that round...
However a small group of countries — Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela — have also recorded serious reservations about what they considered to be imbalances in the package in favour of richer countries, and the absence of provisions barring discrimination in the form of trade embargoes on goods in transit.
It may be the sign it is more balanced than at first sight. I'll check tonight to find out how we share the task if it is alright with u

With all due respect as usual I very much doubt that....

I don't know for sure but to me that's how I'd put it. The Court should go ahead with it as the facts are yes the course of justice was altered, no doubt, and no, think the debate around it will prove that, the state's secrecy laws goals were not to alter the course of justice it is rather an unintended consequence. That said, if, as a result the private parties involved cannot be anymore prosecuted and that, because the state secrecy laws involved have prevented the due course of justice to do so, there can be little doubt that the state which provided unwillingly but actively a shelter to these private parties will have to take up the role they can have in a legal suit both because the state laws provided a shelter to any private parties involved in wrong doing but overwhelmingly because it fell to act to prevent the unintended consequence to become permanent.

Well could have but I always wait for my last candle to go off and it was then a bit late

I know I have read except for Acuta think I got the wrong IP

Not bad really